Official Rhode Island's approach to the homelessness crisis has been unimaginative at best, heartless at worst.

Two years ago, I wrote a piece for the Phoenix titled "How Rhode Island Can Eliminate Homelessness." And while the headline might sound fanciful, it really isn't. Most homeless are on the street temporarily - displaced by a fire or an abusive relationship.

As advocates for the homeless press the General Assembly to maintain funding for the 10-year-old Neighborhood Opportunities Program, which has provided for some 1200 affordable housing units in the last decade, I take a broader look in today's Phoenix at the push to end homelessness in Rhode Island.

On Friday, I wrote about the Obama Administration's new approach to the foreclosure crisis, suggesting it was a victory of sorts for Senator Jack Reed and others in Congress who have sought to shift the White House's attention from those who took up risky mortages - the first wave of the crisis - to unemployed folk who can't keep up on their payments - the second wave.

Rhode Island's struggles with unemployment and homelessness continue to land in the national press. The latest account, on The Atlantic's web site, personalizes the issue with a look at a newly homeless young father:

Douglas Edward Coates is polite, soft spoken, and articulate. He looks like a typical 29-year-old professional in his black wool coat and wire-rimmed glasses, his sandy hair and goatee neatly cropped.

Think of permanent housing not as something you earn, but as a human right, and as a foundation people need to rebuild their lives.

It's called Housing First, and since its beginnings in New York City in the early 1990s, it has been proven to more effectively move people out of homelessness — especially chronic cases — than the traditional system of shelters and tightly structured social services.

As the Senate inches toward passage of a $300 billion bill to help homeowners facing foreclosure, a new Rasmussen Reports national survey shows that only 21% of voters think the federal government should provide such assistance.

Slightly more than half (51%) say the government should not help these troubled homeowners and 27% are undecided.